[1st-mile-nm] Fwd: 6.13.8

Marianne Granoff granoff at zianet.com
Fri Jun 13 11:02:47 PDT 2008

Edited for interest.  FYI.

>Lack of fiber backhaul delays Sprint’s WiMAX launch, Muni
>If only US cities and regions had deployed fiber optic networks that were 
>open to all providers, Sprint’s WiMAX deployment wouldn’t be in the 
>pickle it’s in today. Fierce Broadband Wireless says: “Sprint, which 
>was supposed to launch its Xohm network in April, is having difficulty 
>finding high-capacity transport links to connect cell sites as typical T-1 
>lines that feed today’s mobile networks are inefficient for high-speed 
>wireless broadband data. The problem is that the majority of Sprint’s 
>sites today are T-1 lines, and there just isn’t a lot of fiber and 
>microwave options available across the country. The link between the local 
>area network and local fiber ring is still challenged by older technology 
>and poor coverage, offering limited access to high-capacity connections.”
>  http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/muniwireless/~3/310516673/
>Copps Introduces Plan for Internet Freedom, Save the Internet
>As hard as it may be for some to believe, last Saturday night an FCC 
>commissioner was transformed into an Internet superstar.
>A Step Towards IPv6, CISCO
>A step forward has been taken in the transition to the larger internet 
>address space, IPv6, this week with news that computers can now find each 
>other without having to use the old IPv4 addressing system at all.
>  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7221758.stm
>Yes, DMCA Safe Harbors Apply To Websites, Techdirt
>Every once in a while, when discussing the DMCA's "safe harbors" someone 
>shows up in the comments to insist that the safe harbors were never 
>intended to apply to websites, but merely to ISPs. Tim Lee does a nice bit 
>of work absolutely destroying that assertion, by pointing out how it 
>doesn't make sense given the language of the law which clearly is designed 
>to apply to websites as well as network providers (otherwise, as he notes, 
>why would they ever suggest content would have to be "removed" rather than 
>just "blocked").
>  http://techdirt.com/articles/20080603/0131121297.shtml
>Google Says It Will Support Creation of U.S. Internet Privacy Law, CircleID
>In a letter, copy of which was obtained by Reuters yesterday, Google Inc. 
>has told a senior U.S. Republican lawmaker concerned about privacy that 
>the Internet search and advertising company supports a federal privacy law
>  http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_us_internet_privacy_law/
>FTC Testifies on Spyware, FTC
>The Federal Trade Commission today told the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
>Science, and Transportation that "legislation authorizing the Commission 
>to seek civil penalties in spyware cases could add a potent remedy to 
>those otherwise available to the Commission."
>  http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/06/spyware.shtm

More information about the 1st-mile-nm mailing list